FarkedOver:But child labor, the 8 hour work day, safety on the job.... all things that were fought hard for by leftist activists.

o5iiawah: No they werent. The 8 hour day/40 hour week was put into place by Henry Ford for his non-UAW workers.

SuperTramp:Dude, you's trollin'

o5iiawah:Ok, so tell me where I'm wrong then. Enough with the "Trollin" bullshiat when you read a fact you cant handle.

Your reply in the above exchange completely discounts the labor movement who fought for decades - hell, going back to the early 1800's -- for improved conditions for American workers. Sure, Mr. Ford voluntarily adopted the 8/40 in 1914, but it was another 33 years before it was standardized in the US as part of the FLSA of 1937. Oh, and the first UAW contract with Ford wasn't signed until 1941.

o5iiawah:I worked at a bookstore in high school doing data entry, shelving, cleaning, basic retail, etc. I did the same thing in college at a textbook store only there I was able to negotiate a better starting rate than the pennies over minimum they paid college kids because i already knew the inventory systems they used and had a good understanding of how the industry worked. It was worth it to them to pay me the extra buck an hour because I didn't require any training, could train others and provided them value at the onset of my employment. the "slave wage" job I had at 15 afforded me more wages and a leadership position in my next job at 18

o5iiawah:Actually, the typical republican stance on education is that parents should be able to decide where their child goes to school based on the school's ability to meet the needs of the child.

It really isn't, though, because they do not allow any provisions for people to have the means to send their children to good schools. In other words, they support parents being able to choose their child's school if and only if they can afford it. If they implement a voucher system they will find every way possible to eliminate it because "government spending" and "why should I pay to send your child to school?" (See also: food stamps, healthcare)

Then there's a not insignificant portion of these people who see a voucher system as a means to funnel public money into private schools, where they can insert religious worldviews on the taxpayer's dime because private schools are exempt from the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.

If left to run things the way they want, we'd end up with an educated privileged class and an uneducated worker/indentured servitude class. Exactly like what we had pre-industrial revolution.

o5iiawah:The typical progressive argument for education is to maintain what we have been doing for another 150 years and who see quality control as paying more to those who administer it

Also wrong - a "progressive" would want to improve the school system. More funding so they can hire more teachers and improve the teacher:student ratio. Better facilities, broa der curriculum, longer school hours, more after school activities (particularly important for poorer neighborhoods), reintroducing vocational training classes, trying new teaching methods... the list goes on.=Smidge=

o5iiawah:Smidge204: The typical Republican stance on public education is perfectly in line with their overall mentality of returning to a romanticized/fictional version of a 17th century society.

Actually, the typical republican stance on education is that parents should be able to decide where their child goes to school based on the school's ability to meet the needs of the child.

The typical progressive argument for education is to maintain what we have been doing for another 150 years and who see quality control as paying more to those who administer it. Kids to go schools not based on their propensities to learn or the school's ability to teach but on where they live in a bus route. I hate to break it to you, but every dollar into the NEA gets you more of what you just sneered at as ineffectual, outdated and inflexible.

HotWingConspiracy: Why is it you're ok with 12 year olds entering the work force at a slave wage?

define a "slave wage"

FarkedOver: all things that were fought hard for by leftist activists.

No they werent. The 8 hour day/40 hour week was put into place by Henry Ford for his non-UAW workers.

SuperTramp:FarkedOver: But child labor, the 8 hour work day, safety on the job.... all things that were fought hard for by leftist activists.

o5iiawah: No they werent. The 8 hour day/40 hour week was put into place by Henry Ford for his non-UAW workers.

SuperTramp: Dude, you's trollin'

o5iiawah: Ok, so tell me where I'm wrong then. Enough with the "Trollin" bullshiat when you read a fact you cant handle.

Your reply in the above exchange completely discounts the labor movement who fought for decades - hell, going back to the early 1800's -- for improved conditions for American workers. Sure, Mr. Ford voluntarily adopted the 8/40 in 1914, but it was another 33 years before it was standardized in the US as part of the FLSA of 1937. Oh, and the first UAW contract with Ford wasn't signed until 1941.

And that was only after Mob-connected goons hired by Ford killed a couple people in a strike at a Ford plant.

chuggernaught:Anyone else notice that the GOP and their wealthy puppeteers are slowly trying to bring us back to the slave-wage labor, child labor, debtor's prisons, etc. of the early industrial revolution?

"Bring us back"?! Those were the good old days. Days when you could lose a finger in the meat packing plant and have it wind up on someone's dinner plate! Man, I sure do miss those days.

Smidge204:If they implement a voucher system they will find every way possible to eliminate it because

What in God's name are you talking about? Do you know how retarded this sounds?

Smidge204:It really isn't, though, because they do not allow any provisions for people to have the means to send their children to good schools. In other words, they support parents being able to choose their child's school if and only if they can afford it.

So it is now clear you me you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I'll help if only to stop this runaway train you're on. Those who believe in school choice feel that each parent in a school district should receive $n credit towards educating their child. - roughly equivalent to the school board budget divided by the number of students. If the parent wants to send their student to the public school, great. If they want to send their student to the private school or charter school, they should be given a voucher since they've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ARE NOT SENDING THEIR KID THERE BECAUSE THE SCHOOL SUCKS.

Smidge204:Then there's a not insignificant portion of these people who see a voucher system as a means to funnel public money into private schools, where they can insert religious worldviews on the taxpayer's dime because private schools are exempt from the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.

he idea of school choice is to allow parents to send their kids to schools which best meet the needs of their children, whether they want a trade-based education, arts, STEM, montessori, military, boarding, etc. It is not a secret plan to indoctrinate and convert as many kids as possible into Christians. Most private schools are entirely secular. That is some fine Alex Jones level paranoia....

Smidge204:Also wrong - a "progressive" would want to improve the school system. More funding so they can hire more teachers and improve the teacher:student ratio.

So please explain how "More funding" to push an early 1800's model of education is going to improve the school system? Because aggregate state/federal/local spending per student has doubled since 1970 and like i said, China and India are sending 13 year olds to our best engineering colleges.

...what I was saying about progressives thinking more money at a problem solves it.

chuggernaught:Anyone else notice that the GOP and their wealthy puppeteers are slowly trying to bring us back to the slave-wage labor, child labor, debtor's prisons, etc. of the early industrial revolution?

Because allowing 15 year olds to work 15 hours/week with parent/state permission is slave-wage labor and debtors prisons.I cant honestly understand how progressives can listen to themselves and take their arguments seriously.

SuperTramp:FarkedOver: But child labor, the 8 hour work day, safety on the job.... all things that were fought hard for by leftist activists.

o5iiawah: No they werent. The 8 hour day/40 hour week was put into place by Henry Ford for his non-UAW workers.

SuperTramp: Dude, you's trollin'

o5iiawah: Ok, so tell me where I'm wrong then. Enough with the "Trollin" bullshiat when you read a fact you cant handle.

Your reply in the above exchange completely discounts the labor movement who fought for decades - hell, going back to the early 1800's -- for improved conditions for American workers. Sure, Mr. Ford voluntarily adopted the 8/40 in 1914, but it was another 33 years before it was standardized in the US as part of the FLSA of 1937. Oh, and the first UAW contract with Ford wasn't signed until 1941.

cameroncrazy1984:FarkedOver: I'm sorry you're anti-labor. But child labor, the 8 hour work day, safety on the job.... all things that were fought hard for by leftist activist

Sure they were, but how did they become law?

Apparently I'm anti-labor for supporting things that actually help labor, rather than a feel-good movement.

I believe they became law because workers in factory towns would go on strike and company owners would have guys with guns take care of business. And it happened in other places like New York as well.

Basically there were occasionally pitched battles often involving cops, military etc and the government decided to end the bloodshed by forcing companies to give in.

Then we all went shopping ans forgot the pitched battles that paid for our ability to shop with actual money instead of scrip and let our kids grow up to have real choices.

That is how we got those things. The companies and the Pinkerton's and the politicians hope we stay at the mall while they take away those gains. Eventually the mall closes though. The powers that be are doing everything they can to make sure we hate the organizing principles so they can win the next round.

/there's always a next round//when they say freedom isn't free they aren't talking about foreign threats///maybe we can push the revolution back another generation, people suck at action these days

o5iiawah:What in God's name are you talking about? Do you know how retarded this sounds?

So you're saying that the Republican party has no history of trying to cut funding for public programs? Seriously?

o5iiawah:If they want to send their student to the private school or charter school, they should be given a voucher since they've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ARE NOT SENDING THEIR KID THERE BECAUSE THE SCHOOL SUCKS.

They also already paid for roads they'll never drive on, food they'll never eat, medical care they'll never get...

All this accomplishes is taking money away from a school system that's already strapped and funneling it into an institution that isn't. I believe if the flow of money were reversed you'd be calling it "socialism."

But no, let's ruin society more because fark you, I got mine.

And let's not forget that private schools are allowed to deny or expel students while public schools must accept everybody. If there is any difference in performance between public and private schools (and I'm not entirely convinced there is) that's probably a big part of it, don't ya think?

o5iiawah:So please explain how "More funding" to push an early 1800's model of education is going to improve the school system?

You don't seem to realize what the problem actually is, so of course you have no idea how to actually solve it. Your "solution" is for those who can afford it to abandon the sinking ship leaving millions of American children stranded.

I already described numerous ways additional funding could be used to improve the situation.

Hiring more teachers and building more classrooms to reduce the student:teacher ratio gives teachers more time to supervise and help individual students, which improves things immensely.

Better facilities and a fuller curriculum also help. I've spent ten years in school construction and it breaks my heart every time they tear out a biology or chemistry lab, or convert an auto/wood shop into offices. This is hands-on learning that's being thrown out because it's expensive, so they're the first things to go when budgets get tight... and they never come back. I know of two high schools (not my district, unfortunately) that had a goddamn planetarium. Attached to the main building, too. One of them was renovated into offices and the other was just used as a small auditorium space.

Please understand that not only do things get more expensive over time - not just because of inflation but just generally cost more - but the cost per student is not incremental. At some point your ability to handle the number of students is exceeded and you have to spend a lot more per additional student just to stay at the same level of performance. I've witnessed it personally... there are only so many seats you can wedge into a classrooms, so what do you suppose they do with the overspill? You can't send them home, so you have to spend money either busing them around or building new (often poor quality) "temporary" facilities with what little money you can squeeze out of your budget. That's how you end up with students spending all day in things like this which are often pressed into service well past their intended service life. I know of at least three case where they were literally condemned by the town, and these were not in what most would consider "poor" suburban school districts.

o5iiawah:Because allowing 15 year olds to work 15 hours/week with parent/state permission is slave-wage labor and debtors prisons.

You know what China and India don't do? They don't encourage their high school students to get jobs, so they can spend their time studying instead. That's part of how they're able to "send 13 year olds to our best engineering colleges."=Smidge=

Snap what? The Unions were salty about something that non-union workers were getting. They didn't create the 40 hour week or the 8 hour day. these existed before the unions and were only put into place afterwards. So Ford not only paid his workers more than non-union workers, he gave them more time off and a better work day. But Unions!!!

And there are some who think that making people pay taxes towards schools that suck and not affording them the option, lower income and minority parents especially from getting their kids out of failing schools. "Suck it up and pay" is the progressive message for parents who send their kids to failing schools whereas the only thing the schools care about is more money for the teachers.

Or were you under a rock when Chicago teachers demanded a 16% pay increase?

Smidge204:If there is any difference in performance between public and private schools (and I'm not entirely convinced there is)

So yes, you have been living under a rock. The point isn't whether or not School A (public) stacks up to school B (private/charter) it is that a parent has a choice whether or not to send their kid to either and that in the age of the internet and most homes in America capable of getting 30/MBPS that we educate students based on a 200+ year old model. As I said earlier, if a charter school isn't doing well, a parent can take their kid out of it.

Smidge204:I've spent ten years in school construction and it breaks my heart every time they tear out a biology or chemistry lab, or convert an auto/wood shop into offices

So it sounds like you're in agreement then that instead of a public school which focuses exclusively on teaching a set-in-stone curriculum then it should have class options. Welcome to my point all along.

Smidge204:Hiring more teachers and building more classrooms to reduce the student:teacher ratio gives teachers more time to supervise and help individual students, which improves things immensely.

Again, you're hiring more teachers to educate students based on a 200 year old model. I think this is the 4th time I've brought this up. MOAR teachers is not the answer.

Smidge204:You know what China and India don't do? They don't encourage their high school students to get jobs, so they can spend their time studying instead. That's part of how they're able to "send 13 year olds to our best engineering colleges."

o5iiawah:Chewb1zz: Actually, the typical republican stance is to take money that was supposed to go into public schools

wait, I just got told the public schools are antiquated relics that are failing miserably....

No you got told that we need to make the system better for all students rather than establish a separate system which as I will explain in a minute is no better and siphons money off from fixing the problem as whole.

Chewb1zz: and send their kids to for profit charter schools where only the best and brightest are accepted.

Not true, most charter schools accept students by lottery. They are traditionally more diverse economically and ethnically then public schools which base their student body on geography, often showing a sharp divide between affluent suburb and inner city. I'm excited to read the rest of your moronic rant already...

Also not true. Charter schools only hold lotteries if they are oversubscribed, meaning that there are more applicants than the school has room to accept. While a school's popularity does not inherently correspond with its quality, oversubscribed charter schools may be better on average than undersubscribed charter schools.

Chewb1zz: In fact in most cases the charter schools under perform or at best match most public schools on every metric

Also not true. Some charter schools do fail and parents then have the choice to remove their kids from them. In regards to public schools that fail, parents have no choice at all. I think you'd prefer the latter though - where a student's destiny is determined by where they live in a bus route.

Do you get tired of being wrong. Also not true.

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found in a 2009 report that 17% of charter schools outperformed their public school equivalents, while 37% of charter schools performed worse than regular local schools, and the rest were about the same. A 2010 study by Mathematica Policy Research found that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than regular middle schools in improving student achievement, behavior, or school progress. Among the charter schools considered in the study, more had statistically significant negative effects on student achievement than statistically significant positive effects. These findings are echoed in a number of other studies.

Chewb1zz: To which republicans respond by removing any examination of those charter schools that would establish a metric of comparison

traditional "Republican" plans involve a basic pay package for teachers with merit increases. This is the exact thing the NEA opposes and yet somehow you have it in your mind that school choice advocates want to remove testing.

Charter schools don't by and large do merit pay. But I was talking about standradized metrics for student performance.

Chewb1zz: The money would have been better spent finding a solution to our failing public education

We did it your way for 200 years and now China and India produce 13 year olds that can get into our best engineering Universities.

Public funded school has not been around for 200 years. But maybe we should look at how India and China are educating their youths and see if we can import some of their ideas here. But that might require less blaming of teachers and focus more on parental controls, can't have that, that's there some socialism.

Chewb1zz: Yes, Ford did establish a 40hr work week.

Which was my original point.

No it wasn't. Your point was that Ford was more responsible for the 40hr work week then worker groups. But it took 12 years after Ford established a 40hr work week for it to become law. So the workers obviously had some effects in creating it rather then one company, cause we had a vastly larger worker base then was working at Ford in 1926.

o5iiawah:As I said earlier, if a charter school isn't doing well, a parent can take their kid out of it.

A parent is capable of taking their child out of public school too. The only mandate is they receive at least an equivalent education. Problem is few can afford to do that.

And you seem to want to undermine the system even more, screwing the people who have no alternative. You must be one of those "compassionate conservatives" I used to hear so much about.

o5iiawah:Or were you under a rock when Chicago teachers demanded a 16% pay increase?

Are you one of those people who think a teacher earning $50K/yr is being paid too much, but a family household pulling in $250+/yr is on the verge of abject poverty? And before you trot out the $70+k salary number, that figure includes university staff which is not entirely apropos to the discussion at hand since it's not the university people that are looking for a raise. $50k is not as much as it sounds either; The US median salary is about that, and Chicago has a higher cost of living than most other places so that money doesn't go as far.

Or perhaps you support multi-million-dollar CEO salaries because "you need to pay top dollar for top talent" ? If you subscribe to that mentality, would that not also apply to teachers?

o5iiawah:Again, you're hiring more teachers to educate students based on a 200 year old model.

What model do you suppose charter schools use? If it's not exactly the same basic structure, it's an even older model.

o5iiawah:Fart_Machine: I would hope so since a dollar in 1970 would be $5.37 today

That is adjusted for inflation.

Fart_Machine: Oh snap!

Snap what? The Unions were salty about something that non-union workers were getting. They didn't create the 40 hour week or the 8 hour day. these existed before the unions and were only put into place afterwards. So Ford not only paid his workers more than non-union workers, he gave them more time off and a better work day. But Unions!!!

Smidge204: They also already paid for roads they'll never drive on, food they'll never eat, medical care they'll never get...

And there are some who think that making people pay taxes towards schools that suck and not affording them the option, lower income and minority parents especially from getting their kids out of failing schools. "Suck it up and pay" is the progressive message for parents who send their kids to failing schools whereas the only thing the schools care about is more money for the teachers.

Or were you under a rock when Chicago teachers demanded a 16% pay increase?

Smidge204: If there is any difference in performance between public and private schools (and I'm not entirely convinced there is)

So yes, you have been living under a rock. The point isn't whether or not School A (public) stacks up to school B (private/charter) it is that a parent has a choice whether or not to send their kid to either and that in the age of the internet and most homes in America capable of getting 30/MBPS that we educate students based on a 200+ year old model. As I said earlier, if a charter school isn't doing well, a parent can take their kid out of it.

Smidge204: I've spent ten years in school construction and it breaks my heart every time they tear out a biology or chemistry lab, or convert an auto/wood shop into offices

So it sounds like you're in agreement then that instead of a public school which focuses exclusively on teaching a set-in-stone curriculum then it should have class options. Welcome to my point all along.

Smidge204: Hiring more teachers and building more classrooms to reduce the student:teacher ratio gives teachers more time to supervise and help individual students, which improves things immensely.

Again, you're hiring more teachers to educate students based on a 200 year old model. I think this is the 4th time I've brought this up. MOAR teachers is not the answer.

Smidge204: You know what China and India don't do? They don't encourage their high school students to get jobs, so they can spend their time studying instead. That's part of how they're able to "send 13 year olds to our best engineering colleges."

you've obviously never been to either.

Wow you missed the point completely. Ford may have instituted it in 1922 but it took 16 years after that for it to become Federal law. That wasn't because of Ford; it was due to labor activists fighting for it. Same thing with child labor and worker safety laws.

But Ford!

Also saying we're paying twice as much as in 1970 is a useless figure (which you cribbed from the Cato Institute). Textbooks are certainly more expensive as are technology that didnt exist forty years ago. If you break it down by state with some exceptions the top 10 schools are those whose states have higher education budgets and the bottom spend the least. New York and Alaska are the exceptions on the high end and Colorado on the low side. Overall the conservative solution of cutting education to the bone hasn't worked out so well.

If you want to break it down worldwide Switzerland gets better results but spends more while China spends less but they're hardly the libertarian wet dream of free market education.

Smidge204:o5iiawah: As I said earlier, if a charter school isn't doing well, a parent can take their kid out of it.

A parent is capable of taking their child out of public school too. The only mandate is they receive at least an equivalent education. Problem is few can afford to do that.

And you seem to want to undermine the system even more, screwing the people who have no alternative. You must be one of those "compassionate conservatives" I used to hear so much about.

o5iiawah: Or were you under a rock when Chicago teachers demanded a 16% pay increase?

Are you one of those people who think a teacher earning $50K/yr is being paid too much, but a family household pulling in $250+/yr is on the verge of abject poverty? And before you trot out the $70+k salary number, that figure includes university staff which is not entirely apropos to the discussion at hand since it's not the university people that are looking for a raise. $50k is not as much as it sounds either; The US median salary is about that, and Chicago has a higher cost of living than most other places so that money doesn't go as far.

Or perhaps you support multi-million-dollar CEO salaries because "you need to pay top dollar for top talent" ? If you subscribe to that mentality, would that not also apply to teachers?

o5iiawah: Again, you're hiring more teachers to educate students based on a 200 year old model.

What model do you suppose charter schools use? If it's not exactly the same basic structure, it's an even older model.

o5iiawah: you've obviously never been to either.

And by the miracle of the Internet, I just happen to be talking to an expert on both Indian and Chinese culture and education, right?=Smidge=

Fart_Machine:Fun fact: most countries are also using that "200 year old" model.

Indeed they do.

I didn't mean to imply that such a system is fundamentally broken with my original post, only that it is a relic of the industrial revolution. It could use some tweaks and updates, but mostly my view is its failings are due to being overburden and not inherent flaws in the methodology.

Though I certainly would not be opposed to trying something new. You can't improve unless you try something different, after all.=Smidge=